DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 01/13/2026. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-14, 16-17, and 19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s argument regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) on page 12, “Applicant disagrees that the specification fails to provide sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform the claimed functions as they relate to the “tuning tool” or the “modules” mentioned in the Office Action. Nevertheless, to advance prosecution, Applicant has amended to claims 2-5, and 17-20 to no longer recite the “modules”. In addition, claim 1 now recites that “the plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples are produced off device by a tuning tool” rather than reciting that the audio processing system includes the tuning tool.”
While Examiner agrees that the amended claims remove the term “modules”, which remove 112(f) interpretation for such modules. However, reciting “the plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples are produced off device by a tuning tool configured to decimate … window… and convert” would still invoke 112(f) for the tuning tool, and the specification fails to provide sufficient structure for the “tuning tool” to perform the claimed functions (see MPEP 2181 relating to interpreting a 112(f) limitation).
In response to applicant’s argument regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 on page 14-15, “Thus, as now recited in claims 1, 13, and 17, the frequency-domain sound recording samples stored in the memory are produced off-device by the tuning tool that first decimates the time-domain samples from a first frequency to a second, lower frequency, windows them, and then converts them via fast Fourier transform (FFT) … In contrast, the cited prior art does not teach such operation. Specifically, for claims 1 and 13, Van Buskirk's pseudo-convolution engine performs its FFT/decimation within the runtime processing pipeline and does not disclose an external/off-device preprocessor that delivers precomputed frequency-domain, decimated samples into memory prior to runtime. Similarly, for claim 17, Alles also does not disclose that the frequency-domain sound recording samples stored in the memory are produced off-device and that the at least one processing unit processes those already-converted samples at the second (lower) sampling frequency. Consequently, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection of claims 1 and 13 over Van Buskirk and the rejection of claim 17 over Alles have been overcome. Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and claim 14 depends on claim 13 and are therefore believed to be allowable for at least the same reasons.”
Upon further consideration, Examiner agrees the amended claim 17 overcome the prior art rejection because the amended claim 17 recites a combination of limitations, such as a memory storing a plurality of oscillator frequency and magnitude signals and a single unity sine wave reference table, and a plurality frequency domain sound recording samples and at least one processing unit coupled to the memory and configured to read the plurality of oscillator frequency and magnitude signals and the single unity sine wave reference table and the plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples, generate and output an oscillator output and process the plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples at the second frequency. For claims 1 and 13, Examiner respectfully disagrees because the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., preprocessor that delivers precomputed frequency-domain, decimated samples into memory prior to runtime) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In other words, the claim merely recites the plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples are produced off device by a tuning tool, and Examiner interprets “off device” refers to processes that occur outside from a specific physical device, regardless it is being computed prior or after runtime. Thus, Van figure 2 illustrates the runtime input channel processing 50 as a tuning tool to FFT/Decimation and illustrates the processing channel module 53 as the at least one processing unit to processes those already converted samples at the lower sampling frequency, wherein the runtime input channel processing 50 is an off device that performs processes that occur outside from other devices.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 on page 16,”Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1, 13, and 17, as amended are directed to significantly more than an abstract idea and are accordingly directed to patentable subject matter. Applicant submits that these rejections are rendered moot at least in view of the amendments to the claims contained herein.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the amended claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or provide significantly more under step 2B.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). See the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 below.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities
Claim 19 depends on a cancelled claim 18. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets claim 19 to be dependent of claim 17.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) , is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) :
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) . The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) , is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) . The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) , is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) , except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) , except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) , because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a tuning tool” in claim 1 and 17. Figure 2 illustrates a tuning tool configured to decimate sound samples, window decimated sound samples and convert to frequency domain using decimation 192, window 194, and FFT 196. However, the blocks are recited as “black boxes” without sufficient structures to perform the claimed function. Thus, the specification fails to provide sufficient structures to perform the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) , it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) , applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-12, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 17 recite “a tuning tool”, which invoke 112(f) interpretation. However, the specification fails to provide sufficient structure, material, or acts, to perform the claimed function. Figure 2 illustrates a tuning tool 130 as a “black box” without sufficient structure to perform the claimed function, and merely reciting a tuning tool as a black box without detail structure fails to provide sufficient structure, material, or act as required when invoked 112(f).
Dependent claims are also rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies in which claims they depend on.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-12, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 17 recite “a tuning tool”, which invoke 112(f) interpretation. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Figure 2 illustrates a tuning tool 130 as a “black box”, and merely reciting the tool as a black box without sufficient structure to perform the claimed function fails to satisfy the requirement for 112(f) interpretation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Dependent claims are also rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies in which claims they depend on.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 13-14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites an audio processing system
Under Prong One of Step 2A of the USPTO current eligibility guidance (MPEP 2106), the claim recites the plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples, being previously converted from a plurality of sound recording samples represented in a time domain, are produced by decimate the plurality of sound recording samples being sampled at a first frequency to a plurality of decimated sound recording samples being sampled at a second frequency less than the first frequency, window the plurality of decimated sound recording samples to output a plurality of windowed decimated sound recording samples, and convert the plurality of windowed decimated sound recording samples to the plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples via a fast Fourier transform and processing the plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples at the second frequency. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (see at least figure 2 illustrates the step of performing decimation [0031] describes step of down-sample signal from 24kHz to 12kHz, windowing, and FFT operation to generate the frequency samples and the frequency sampled being processed by performing other mathematical operation such as IFFT operation). Therefore, the claim includes limitations that fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim additionally recites an audio processing system comprising a memory storing a plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples represented and stored in a frequency domain, and a tuning tool to produce data off device, and at least one processing unit coupled to the memory and configured to read the plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples from the memory. However, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as computer components performing computer functions of storing, reading and processing data. Such additional elements fail to provide a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computer components. Moreover, the audio processing system processing sound record samples are merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception into a particular technological environment or field of use, which is audio processing. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to the step 2A prong two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more mere instructions to apply the exception. Thus, the claim does not provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and fails to ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 2 further recites the at least one processing unit includes a digital signal processor and the tuning tool is configured to be selectively coupled to the digital signal processor, such limitations are considered additional elements under step 2A prong two, but are recited at a high level of generality, e.g., computer components coupled with each other to perform operations, and such limitations amount to no more than mere instructions for applying the judicial exception. Thus, the claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13 recites method claim that would be practiced by the apparatus claim 1. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons. Claim 13 further recites a step of converting a plurality of sound recording samples represented in a time domain to a plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples represented in a frequency domain, such limitation covers mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (performing FFT operation to convert data from time domain to frequency domain) under step 2A prong one. Additionally, the claim recites a processor besides the at least one processing unit, such limitation is considered as additional element under step 2A prong two, but is recited at a high level of generality, e.g., computer component performing computer function and amount to no more than mere instructions for applying the judicial exception. Thus, the claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 14 recite method claims that would be practiced by the apparatus claims 2. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 17 recites an audio processing system
Under Prong One of Step 2A of the USPTO current eligibility guidance (MPEP 2106), the claim recites the plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples, being previously converted from a plurality of sound recording samples represented in a time domain, are produced by decimate the plurality of sound recording samples being sampled at a first frequency to a plurality of decimated sound recording samples being sampled at a second frequency less than the first frequency, window the plurality of decimated sound recording samples to output a plurality of windowed decimated sound recording samples, and convert the plurality of windowed decimated sound recording samples to the plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples via a fast Fourier transform and processing the plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples at the second frequency; generate and output an oscillator output based on the plurality of oscillator frequency and magnitude signal and the single unity sine wave reference table. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (see at least figure 2 illustrates the step of performing decimation [0031] describes step of down-sample signal from 24kHz to 12kHz, windowing, and FFT operation to generate the frequency samples and the frequency sampled being processed by performing other mathematical operation such as IFFT operation; figure 2 further illustrates at 152 that generate an output an oscillator output using mathematical operation, such as IIR filter operation based on the variable provided). Therefore, the claim includes limitations that fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim additionally recites an audio processing system comprising a memory storing a plurality of oscillator frequency and magnitude signals and a single unity sine wave reference table, and a plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples represented and stored in a frequency domain; a tuning tool to produce data off device, and at least one processing unit coupled to the memory configured to read the plurality of oscillator frequency and magnitude signals and the single unity sine wave reference table and the plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples from the memory. However, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as computer components performing computer functions of storing, reading and processing data. Moreover, the audio processing system processing sound record samples are merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception into a particular technological environment or field of use, which is audio processing. Such additional elements fail to provide a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computer components. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to the step 2A prong two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more mere instructions to apply the exception. Thus, the claim does not provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and fails to ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 19 recite apparatus claim having similar limitations as apparatus claim 2. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van - US 20110064233 (hereinafter Van) in view of Mack - US (6788746).
Regarding claim 1, Van teaches an audio processing system (Van figure 2 [0040] illustrates an audio processing system 48) comprising:
a memory storing a plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples represented and stored in a frequency domain and being previously converted from a plurality of sound recording samples represented in a time domain (Van figure 3 illustrates components being part of the system 48, which includes [0043] describes frequency domain buffer 96 to store frequency domain frame data that are processed in a plurality of cycles. Thus, the buffer 96 [i.e., a memory] stores a plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples, which being previously converted from data in a time domain using FFT), wherein the plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples are produced off device by a tuning tool (Van figures 2-3 illustrates the frequency domain sound recording samples are produced by the runtime input channel processing 50 [i.e., a tuning tool], which is an off device from other devices) configured to decimate the plurality of sound recording samples being sampled at a first frequency to a plurality of decimated sound recording samples being sampled at a second frequency less than the first frequency (Van [0042] figure 3 receives digitized audio source samples at frame copy 74 at a first sample rate, for example 48 kHz [i.e., a first frequency], which is the plurality of sound recording samples, which are down-sampled [i.e., decimate] by decimation low-pass filter 90 to a lower sample rate [i.e., a second frequency], for example 1/2 the audio source sample rate (e.g., 24kHz). Thus, the lower rate is less than the first frequency)), and convert the plurality of decimated sound recording samples to the plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples via a fast Fourier transform (Van fig 3 [0043] processing 50 includes FFT module 86 [i.e., a fast Fourier transform] to convert decimated samples in time domain to frequency domain [i.e., the plurality of frequency domain sound]); and
at least one processing unit coupled to the memory and configured to: read the plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples from the memory, and process the plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples at the second frequency (Van figure 2 illustrates a system includes processing channel module 53 [i.e., at least one processing unit] coupled to the buffer 96 [i.e., the memory], also see figure 5 [0055] illustrates the buffer XLAF feed data into the module 53 for processing. Thus, the module 53 reads the data in frequency domain from buffer and process the data in frequency domain, wherein as illustrated in figure 3 the FFT operation in block 86 is coupled to the half sample rate [i.e., the second frequency] frequency domain buffer and is being processed by 53)
Van does not teach window the plurality of decimated sound recording samples to output a plurality of windowed decimated sound recording samples. However, Mack discloses a method of processing signal includes windowing a plurality of decimated recording samples to output a plurality of windowed decimated recording samples (Mack, figure 8 column 6 line 1-33 describes a method to perform down sampling for a plurality of data samples at block 62 to generate a plurality of decimated recording samples, and a time series window function is applied to the plurality of decimated samples to output a plurality of windowed decimated recording samples, which are further processed in FFT operation)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the block 50 of Van as disclosed in figure 3 to include a time series window function block 64 after the decimation buffer 92 and before FFT module 82 to perform windowing function on the decimated samples before performing the FFT operation as disclosed in Mack. This modification would have been obvious because both reference discloses method to process digital signal that includes the step of down sampling samples and performing FFT operation. Furthermore, as recognized by Mack in column 6 line 11-13, applying a times series window function to the down-sampled data samples would reduce any spectral leakage.
As modified, the combined system of Van in view of Mack teaches the system to have a component 50 [i.e., the tuning tool] configured to decimate the plurality of sound record samples, window the plurality of decimated sound recording samples and convert the plurality of windowed decimated sound record samples to the plurality of frequency domain sound (as modified, Van figure 3 low pass filter 90 generate decimated samples, time series window of 64 Mack generate windowed decimated samples, and FFT block 82 of Van to generate the frequency domain samples)
Regarding claim 2, Van further teaches the audio processing system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processing unit includes a digital signal processor (Van figures 2 and 5 illustrates [0040] the processing channel module 53 includes a multi-rate adaptive filter 54, a collection and alignment routine 56, and a tail extension processor 58 [i.e., a digital signal processor], which operates on digital audio source) and the tuning tool is configured to be selectively coupled to the digital signal processor (Van figure 3 illustrates the runtime input channel processing 50 [i.e., the tuning tool] coupled to digital signal processor within the process channel module 53).
Claims 13-14 recite method claims that would be practiced by the apparatus claims 1-2. Thus, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 9-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(a), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(a), set forth in this Office action.
For claim 17, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a combination of limitations, including a memory storing a plurality of oscillator frequency and magnitude signals and a single unity sine wave reference table, and a plurality frequency domain sound recording samples and at least one processing unit coupled to the memory and configured to read the plurality of oscillator frequency and magnitude signals and the single unity sine wave reference table and the plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples, generate and output an oscillator output and process the plurality of frequency domain sound recording samples at the second frequency.
Van – US 20110064233
Van discloses an audio processing system as illustrated in figure 2, wherein the system receive digital input samples and process the samples through a low pass filter and decimate the samples to process in a lower sample rate, an FFT module to convert the decimated samples from time domain to frequency domain, storing the converted samples and process the converted samples using the processing channel module 53. However, Van does not teach or suggest a memory to store a plurality of oscillator frequency and magnitude signals and a single unity sine wave reference table and at least one processing unit to generate and output an oscillator output based on the plurality of oscillator frequency and magnitude signals and the single unity sine wave reference table as required in claim 17.
Alles – US 4201105
Alles discloses a real time digital sound synthesizer as illustrated in figure 1, wherein the synthesizer 16 configured to generate an output signal based on the specified frequency, amplitude, and sine wave table stored in memory. However, Alles does not teach or suggest a memory to store a plurality frequency domain sound recording samples produced by performing decimate to output decimated samples being sampled at a second frequency, window the plurality of decimated sound, and convert the windowed decimated sound recording samples to frequency domain and process the samples in frequency domain at the second frequency as required in claim 17.
Mack – US 6788746
Mack discloses a method to process digital signal as illustrated in figure 8, wherein the signal is passed through a low pass filter and being down-sampled using unit 60 and 62, respectively, then the down-sampled signal is applied with a time series window function to reduce spectral leakage before being further processes using FFT module. However, Mack does not teach or suggest the sample frequency domain being produced off device and a memory to store a plurality of oscillator frequency and magnitude signals and a single unity sine wave reference table and at least one processing unit to generate and output an oscillator output based on the plurality of oscillator frequency and magnitude signals and the single unity sine wave reference table as required in claim 17.
See OA dated 08/14/2025 for reasons for allowable subject matter regarding claims 4-6, 9-12, and 16
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2764. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 7:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Caldwell can be reached at (571) 272-3702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUY DUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2182 (571)272-2764
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182